Michigan Primary Bits of Tid: January 16, 2008

• Hillary won an underwhelming 55% of the vote, while 40% voted Uncommitted. Hillary won 73 DNC delegates, while Uncommitted won 55. I call Hillary's win underwhelming because she was supposed to dominate this election. As John Nichols of The Nation writes:
  

  As the only leading Democratic contender to keep her name on the ballot after Michigan officials moved their primary ahead of the opening date scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.
  
  Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996.



• On Michigan Liberal:
  
  • Mark Grebner tells us how each district voted.
    
  • Phil offers an analysis of West Michigan numbers.
    
  • Nirmal crunches the exit poll data.
    
  • Laura analyzes the youth vote numbers. Uncommitted actually outperformed Hillary among young voters!


• You gotta love it: The Michigan Republican Party erroneously sent out a press release congratulating McCain on the victory he didn't have. Oops.
  


• One more bit from Michigan Liberal, written by yours truly. Did holding the primary early have the desired effect of giving Michigan more influence in the nominating process? No.
  

  Had we held a February 5 caucus - an idea which I supported even when the caucus was set for February 9 all the while other states were moving theirs to February 5 - Michigan would have been the fourth-largest state with a primary or caucus that day (and the second-largest not including the home states of the front-runners). Candidates would have come to Michigan, and their campaigns - as well as our Party - would have been better for it.
  
  Yet some people decided that it was better for Dems to break DNC rules (arcane as they are) and base our delegate count on a primary that would not have gone on if not for four extreme conservatives on the state Supreme Court. MDP leaders knew that some of the candidates would not be campaigning if they decided to go with a primary, yet most of them chose to go ahead with it anyway.
  
  The result? Instead of having more influence in our nominating process, we have at the moment pretty much no influence (and it is uncertain whether we will have influence in the end). Instead of unity, as the LA Times put it, we have rancor. Instead of Michigan issues being at the forefront of the campaign, we are once again seen as a laughing stock to the rest of the country.
  

Hillary ekes out New Hampshire upset; more analysis

With most of the votes in, CNN and other outlets say that Hillary Clinton and John McCain have each won their respective parties' primaries in New Hampshire. Time for me once again to don my pundit cap. (Apparently I look a lot more attractive with a pundit cap than without one.)

In terms of pledged delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions, Barack Obama still holds a thinner-than-Wheat-Thins lead of 25-24 over Clinton, with Edwards at 18. Romney has 24 delegates to 18 for Mike Huckabee, 10 for John McCain, 6 for Fred Thompson, 2 for Ron Paul, and 1 for Duncan Hunter. Again, a candidate must win a majority of the convention delegates to win the nomination. More on how delegates are selected later.

If nothing else, Hillary and McCain proved with this primary that they are top-notch contenders and are both very much in it. Big victory for Hillary? Yes. Setback for Obama? Yes. Fluke? We'll find out soon enough.

For Hillary, this win should remind everyone that it's not over yet, despite her disappointing third-place finish in Iowa. Must do well in: Michigan. I mean, there are five choices on the ballot in Tuesday's primary: Clinton; Gravel; Kucinich; Gravel; Dodd; and Uncommitted. Gravel and Kucinich were the bottom finishers in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Dodd is no longer running. More on Michigan's primary in the next couple days.

For Obama, this could in many respects be considered a disappointment. He was, after all, leading by several points in most polls leading up to the primary. He had a certain amount of momentum that has now been lost. That said, only twice in the last ten elections has a Democrat won every single Democratic primary and caucus, and Obama only lost New Hampshire by two points. Also, as I mentioned, he holds a one-vote lead in the delegate count. If nothing else, this should motivate Obama supporters and remind them not to take things for granted. Oh, and polls aren't always that reliable. Must do well in: South Carolina. Nearly half of South Carolinians who took CNN's exit poll in the 2004 primary were black. Neither New Hampshire nor Iowa can be considered nearly that racially diverse.

Edwards has pulled two disappointing performances in a row. Both Clinton and Obama received twice as many votes as Edwards in New Hampshire. Must do well in: South Carolina, for three reasons. First, he was born in Seneca, SC. Second, he currently lives in North Carolina. Third, he won South Carolina over Kerry in 2004. Should he follow his disappointing showing in the Granite State with another one in the Palmetto State, look for many in the 'Anybody-but-Hillary' crowd to ratchet up the pressure on Edwards to drop out and let said anti-Hillary crowd more or less unite behind Obama.

Richardson has been a much bigger disappointment than Edwards. Richardson took 2% in Iowa and 5% in New Hampshire, failing to win a single delegate to the Convention. Must do well in: Nevada, with its heavy Latino population.

Just a few months ago, McCain was all but counted out. His campaign looked like it was on its deathbed. Yet with a third-place finish in Iowa and a victory in New Hampshire, it appears that (to borrow an expression) rumors of the death of his campaign were greatly exaggerated. Must do well in: Michigan, where it has been a battle between him and Romney from the get-go.

Romney won the barely publicized Wyoming caucus last Saturday and has finished second in the other two states. Despite their second-place finishes, he and Obama each actually lead their National Convention delegate counts. Still he must do well in: Michigan, which his father governed from 1963-1969.

What happened to Huckabee? McCain tripled Huckabee's total in the Granite State, and Romney came close to pulling off the same feat. South Carolina has a higher percentage of evangelical and born-again Christians, and regional favoritism could benefit him. Thus, he must do well in: South Carolina.

Rudy Giuliani edged Ron Paul after finishing behind him in Iowa. Fred Thompson took a dismal 1%. Why is Duncan Hunter still running?

Iowa results - and where we go from here

Here are the near-final Iowa numbers from CNN as of 2:45 AM:

Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
Richardson - 2%
Biden - 1%

Biden and Chris Dodd have dropped out.

Huckabee - 34%
Romney - 26%
Thompson - 13%
McCain - 13%
Paul - 10%
Giuliani - 3%
Hunter - 0%

Time for some analysis. By winning, Huckabee and Obama have momentum heading into next Tuesday's New Hampshire primary. The Iowa Democratic caucus was seen as a very close three-way contest amongst Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. The Republican caucus was seen as a toss-up between Huckabee and Romney.

For Obama to win by eight points, therefore, should be considered particularly good news for him. Also good for him is that quite a few more independents - a voting bloc where he did particularly well in Iowa - are expected to vote in New Hampshire. Also, the fact that he won an overwhelmingly white state tells us that, well, his appeal crosses racial lines. If he can follow his win in Iowa with another one in New Hampshire, then he will have high expectations for South Carolina, whose black population is quite high.

Edwards really needed to do well here. Had he finished behind Hillary, I doubt his campaign would've ended, but his organization was said to be lagging behind Hillary and Obama in other states. In other words, unlike Obama and Hillary, most of his chips were down in Iowa, and he needed to do well there to get some mo'. Now he needs to do well in South Carolina, where he was born. That said, his second-place finish couldn't hurt too much; for him to beat Hillary (albeit by a small margin) gives him some momentum.

For Hillary - long considered the front-runner - to finish behind both Obama and Edwards has got to be disappointing. Having said that, she and Obama are the two with the most organized campaigns. She had been leading in several states. Whether she gets any momentum from Michigan - where she is one of four candidates in contention (along with 'Uncommitted') - remains to be seen, since Michigan has lost its delegates because of the fact that holding a primary on January 15 violated Party rules.

Richardson needs to do well somewhere. Preferably Nevada, with its high Latino population. With just 2% in Iowa, his campaign is on the ropes.

Romney has to do well in New Hampshire for two reasons. One, the state he governed, Massachusetts, borders New Hampshire. Two, Iowa has a higher percentage of evangelical and born-again Republican voters than New Hampshire; they are seen as the main reason Huckabee won. If Huckabee can use his Iowa momentum and overcome those obstacles to win New Hampshire, then he is the clear front0-runner heading into the Michigan primary a week later. (Michigan Republicans lost only half of their delegates for scheduling the primary on January 15.) If Romney loses New Hampshire, then he MUST hold off Huckabee here in Michigan, which his father governed during much of the 1960s.

For McCain, Thompson, and Giuliani, it's a fight to stay in the top tier. Ron Paul could yet pull off a surprise, since he seems to be sharing in the momentum. Why Duncan Hunter is still in the race beats me.

You might look at these returns and think, 'well, Obama did great.' I, an Obama supporter, am pleased that he won. But you see, what matters is how many delegates to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions are won by each candidate. Obama holds a narrow lead with 16 Democratic delegates, followed by Clinton at 15 while Edwards has 14. Huckabee leads the Republican delegate count with 17, followed by Romney at 12, McCain and Thompson at 3 apiece, and Paul with 2.

Even more interesting? Both parties require that a candidate gets a majority of the delegate votes at the convention. No candidate has a majority on either side.

Now, here's what's likely to happen. As the primary season continues, a clearer picture will emerge on both sides of the aisle. Seeing writing on the wall, more candidates will follow Biden and Dodd out of the race, meaning less competition for those who are still in it. In 2004 eight Democrats were in the running leading up to the caucuses. Dick Gephardt dropped out after Iowa; Joe Lieberman exited after New Hampshire; Wes Clark's swan song came following voting in Tennessee and Virginia; and Howard Dean's downfall was completed after the Wisconsin primary. After 'Super Tuesday' which was then in March and not February) John Edwards dropped out.

In all likelihood, as candidates drop out they will release their delegates. That is, they will allow the delegates pledged to vote for them to instead vote for someone else. In 2004, for example, many of the candidates received delegates, but only Kerry won a majority of the delegates. The other candidates released their delegates, allowing them to vote for Kerry at the convention and providing a near-unanimous vote for Kerry.

So there you have it. Obama and Huckabee are by no means assured of their nominations. But they are the front-runners and they do have that all-important momentum heading into the rest of the primary season.

Bits of Tid: August 16, 2007

Hello/Goodbye Edition

Goodbye Karl Rove, but don't think for a moment that Conyers and Leahy are done with you just because you're resigning.

Goodbye Dennis Hastert, Deborah Pryce, and Chip Pickering. You're leaving Congress next year. Don't let the door hit you on the way out; as one Kos commenter said, it's be pretty hard for the door not to hit Hastert!

Goodbye Tommy Thompson; Kos’s Trapper John pays tribute to you in the form of a parody called "O Tommy Boy."

Goodbye common sense priorities in the media. Which is the bigger story to you - Edwards’s hair, or Giuliani claiming he was a 9/11 worker? Most pundits probably disagree.

Hello Al Gore? Hello? If you were in the race, 36% of Michigan Democrats would pick you as their top choice for President. Republicans’ top pick: Nope, not George Romney’s son, but Fred Thompson.

Hello Michigan jobs. Or so I hope. Democrats in Lansing want to encourage more firms to "Hire Michigan First."

Goodbye Jennifer Granholm. Best wishes on your trip to Sweden, where you hope to attract businesses to follow you home.

Goodbye single life, says Jenna Bush. Best wishes to both Jenna and her fiance. I must say I feel sorry for him; While most people can't stand their in-laws, I bet none of your in-laws have started unnecessary wars.

Hello CMU! In one week I'll be heading back to the Mounty for my junior (!) year in college. I may or may not blog much during ther semester, but we shall see..........

Bits of Tid: August 13, 2007

It's Gettin' Hot In Here Edition

• Get your Iowa Republican straw poll results here. Romney couldn't even take 2% of the vote against second-tier candidates (Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani opted not to participate). But what I find really interesting is that results of the straw poll were delayed.... by voting-machine issues!
• The saddest part of the aftermath of the straw poll: Tommy Thompson is out of the race. (Sarcastic sobbing)
• Rudy Giuliani's daughter seems to be supporting Barack Obama - and, as it turns out, so are a number of Iowa Republicans.
• Anyone for a Keyes Presidency? (This is the guy who got annihilated in the 2004 Illinois US Senate race by some guy named Barack Obama.)
• Have Oklahomans had "Inhofe" of one of their US Senators? What about Texans? Idahoans? (More on US Senate races soon.) I guess we'll find out in 450 days; it probably won't be quite that long until Kentucky gets a new Governor.
• "No one has worked harder on" emergency communications issues than Debbie Stabenow, says Harry Reid.
• West Michigan is receiving just shy of $350,000 for anti-gang programs, while Detroit will see a similar amount for crime control and prevention.

Election 2008: The Unimportance of Experience

Chief among criticisms of both John Edwards and Barack Obama are that they are too inexperienced to be good presidents - that they're 'not ready for prome time,' as the saying goes.

Let me first of all say that while Obama and Edwards are two of my early favorites for the nod (along with Richardson), there is no guarantee that I'll actually support any of them when caucus time nears.

On that note, here’s a look at the current and possible 2008 candidates and how many years they will have spent in public office as of November 2008:

• Joe Biden: 38 years - 36 years in the Senate, 2 as a County Councilman
• Tommy Thompson: 38 - 4 as Health and Human Services Secretary, 14 as governor, 20 in the state Assembly
• Chris Dodd: 34 - 28 years in the Senate, 6 in the House
• Duncan Hunter: 28 in the House
• John McCain: 26 - 22 in the Senate, 4 in the House
• Al Gore: 24 - 8 years each as VP, Senator, and Congressman
• Bill Richardson: 24 - 6 as governor, 4 in the Clinton administration, 14 in Congress
• Newt Gingrich: 20 in the House
• Ron Paul: 18 in the House
• Mike Gravel: 16 - 12 in the Senate, 4 in the Alaska House
• Sam Brownback: 14 - 12 in the Senate, 2 in the House
• Mike Huckabee: 14 - 3 as Lieutenant Governor, 11 as Governor
• Dennis Kucinich: 14 - 12 in Congress, 2 as mayor of Cleveland
• Tom Tancredo: 14 - 10 in Congress, 4 in the Colorado House
• Barack Obama: 12 - 4 in the US Senate, 8 in the state Senate
• Jim Gilmore: 12 - 4 as Governor, 4 as Attorney General, 4 as Commonwealth's Attorney
• Hillary Clinton: 8 in the Senate
• Rudy Giuliani: 8 as mayor
• Fred Thompson: 8 in the Senate
• John Edwards: 6 in the Senate
• Mitt Romney: 4 as governor

I don't know about you, but somehow I'm more willing to trust Obama with the future of this country than the more-experienced McCain.

Now here are the other 2004 hopefuls (besides Edwards and Kucinich) arranged by the amount of experience they had when they ran:

• Bob Graham: 38 - 18 years in the US Senate; 8 as governor, 8 in the state senate, 4 in the state house
• Dick Gephardt: 33 - 28 in Congress, 5 as St. Louis alderman
• Joe Lieberman: 32 - 16 in the US Senate, 6 as state attorney general, 10 as state senator
• John Kerry: 22 - 20 in the Senate, 2 as Lieutenant Governor
• Howard Dean: 20 - 11.5 years as governor, 4.5 as Lt. Governor, 4 in the state House
• Carol Moseley Braun: 16 - 6 years in the Senate, 8 in the state House, 2 as Ambassador to New Zealand
• Wesley Clark: 0
• Al Sharpton: 0

Take your pick: Clark or Lieberman? I thought so.

Now let’s add a twist. Here are the last 12 Presidents of this great country, and how much time they spent in public office before becoming President:

• Harry Truman: 27 - 10 on the County Court, 10 years as Senator, 3 months as VP
• Lyndon B. Johnson: 26 - 3 years as VP, 12 in the US Senate, 12 in the House
• Gerald Ford: Almost 26 - 25 in the US House, less than a year as VP
• G.H.W. Bush: 17 - 8 as VP, 4 in the US House, 5 in the Nixon and Ford administrations
• Bill Clinton: 14 - 12 as governor, 2 as state Attorney General
• John F. Kennedy: 14 - 8 in the Senate, 6 in the House
• Richard Nixon: 14 - 4 in the House, 2 as Senator, 8 as VP
• FDR: 13 - 4 years as governor, 2 as state senator, 7 as Assistant Navy Secretary
• Jimmy Carter: 8 - 4 years as Governor, 4 as state Senator
• Ronald Reagan: 8 as Governor
• His Idiocy: 6 as Governor
• Dwight Eisenhower: 0

Who do you think was the better president: Eisenhower, or the more experienced Poppy?

I have listed 41 different individuals in three different categories: 2008 candidates and potential candidates; 2004 candidates; and former Presidents. Now let’s arrange all 41 of the above-mentioned figures in order of how many years they spent in public office:

• Biden, T. Thompson, Graham: 38 years each
• Dodd: 34
• Gephardt: 33
• Lieberman: 32
• Hunter: 28
• Truman: 27+
• LBJ: 27
• Kerry, McCain: 26
• Ford: Just under 26
• Gore, Richardson: 24
• Kerry: 22
• Dean, Gingrich: 20
• Paul: 18
• GHW Bush: 17
• Gravel, Moseley Braun: 16
• B. Clinton, Kennedy, Johnson, Brownback, Huckabee, Kucinich, Tancredo: 14 each
• FDR: 13
• Gilmore, Obama: 12
• H. Clinton, Giuliani, F. Thompson, Carter, Reagan: 8 each
• Edwards, DUH-bya: 6 each*
• Romney: 4
• Eisenhower, Sharpton, Clark: Nada

So... Edwards or Newt? Hillary or Duncan Hunter? Clark or Lieberman?

My point? Well, first of all, Obama isn’t as inexperienced as the spin doctors may have you believe. He’s more experienced than the Nobel Laureate in this group!

Second, it’s not how long you’ve been in office that matters, it’s what you’ve done in that time. But more importantly, it’s about what you plan to do once in office. A career politician (read: Biden) does not always cut it like someone who has a record of integrity and hard work combined with a vision of what America could become (i.e. Obama and Edwards).

So is Edwards inexperienced? Compared to Tommy Thompson, sure. But he is still more seasoned politically than either Eisenhower or Clark, two fine people whom I admire well.

I'm not trying to say inexperienced politicians make better Presidents. Gore and Richardson would do a hell of a lot better job than Fred Thompson. And don't get me started about the guy in the White House right now.

But if experience is as important as some would have you believe, then why is it that such figures as Eisenhower, Edwards, and Hillary are more admired than Dodd, Lieberman, or Gephardt?

So maybe we should avoid focusing on someone’s experience (or lack thereof) and look at the big picture. We need leadership in the White House - leadership that may or may not come from a career poilitician.